Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique
Products & Services On Earth!

Major Media Promote War On Libya
By Stephen Lendman
3-2-11

When imperial America wants war, peace advocates are
shut out by official rhetoric and hawkish media reports supporting militarism,
not diplomatic efforts to achieve peace. Those for it aren't heard. Hugo
Chavez's government is one. On February 28, Venezuela's Foreign Minister,
Nicolas Maduro, warned against belligerence saying:

"We would be against any military intervention against
the Arabic people of Libya, and I'm sure that all peoples of the world
would support a struggle against any interventionism that some powerful
countries would commit against it....Arabic people who are in a process
of rebellion, seeking a better destiny, (can) find their way to peace.
(Venezuelans understand) very difficult times, (but have) gone about finding
our ways to independence, democracy, and freedom, which in our case"
is Bolarivarianism.

"Just as we were against the invasion of Iraq and
the massacre of the Palestinian people of Gaza, we would be against any
military (attack or) invasion of Libya."

Chavez added: We "want peace for this country and
for the peoples of the world. Those who immediately condemn Libya don't
talk about (Israel's) bombing (of Gaza, America assault on) Fallujah, and
the thousands and thousands of deaths including children, women, and whole
families. They are quiet about the bombing and massacres in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
so they don't have the right to condemn anyone," especially from unverified
reports.

Amidst hawkish official rhetoric and supportive media
reports, Chavez and Maduro are shut out, unheard voices in the wilderness
outside Venezuela and parts of Latin America.

Official US Policy: War Yes, Peace No

For imperial America, giving peace a chance isn't an
option when war is planned to destroy another nation, replace its leader
with a more amenable one, and plunder its resources. In Libya, its to exploit
its vast energy reserves and people, commodities for greater profit.

A previous article said Gaddafi without question is despotic,
governing by "fear and cronyism," treating Libya as his "private
estate," as well as spawning a hierarchy of corrupt officials, disdainful
of popular interests.

The same holds for dozens of other countries, most of
which Washington supports, some as close allies. Ones allied with America
escape media scrutiny, their crimes airbrushed from daily reports. Enemies,
however, are pilloried, including by unverified misreporting, willfully
distorting the truth, violating good journalism principles.

Until it closed at year end 2005, Chicago's famed City
News Bureau gave young reporters rigorous training, explained in its notable
principle: "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with
two independent sources." In other words, get it right or not at all,
what's absent in today's deplorable reporting, from Fox to The New York
Times, BBC and others, offering managed, not real news and information.

Fox News especially, as America's official voice of right
wing politics. On US television, it's in full battle mode, beating the
drums of war, its staff under strict management guidelines, manipulating
facts to be hardline.

As a result, news anchor Jon Scott said, "If I were
President Obama, I would unilaterally" impose a no-fly zone, no matter
that doing so is an act of war. Bill O'Reilly called Obama's position "beyond
wimpy." Sean Hannity wonders when America will attack Libya, calling
Obama "extraordinarily weak." Glenn Beck said Wisconsin protests
prove the Caliphate's presence in America. Other hosts are just as extreme.
No wonder Fairness and Accuracy in Media (FAIR) calls Fox "the most
biased name in news." It reports. It decides. Truth is nowhere in
sight.

The New York Times editorial headlined, "Qaddafi's
Crimes and Fantasies," matched Fox, saying:

His "crimes continue to mount." Citing unverified
reports, it said "Libyan Air Force warplanes bombed rebel-controlled
areas in the eastern part of the country. Libyan special forces mounted
ground assaults on two breakaway cities near the capital. (Finally), the
United States (EU and UN want) Qaddafi and his cronies to go (and) called
on the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes."

This is the same paper that exonerated Washington and
Britain for fabricating Iraq WMD intelligence to justify war, citing London's
whitewash Hutton inquiry in its January 29, 2004 editorial headlined, "Testing
Two Leaders; Tony Blair, Vindicated."

Despite clear indictable evidence, The Times endorsed
the findings for being "fully consistent with the information available
to British intelligence (and Washington) at that time and that no claims
then known to be false or unreliable were concluded." In fact, they
were independently exposed as false and misleading, though nonetheless
used to wage war.

"With Miller, we (sunk) to the level of straight
press handout. Lay all Judith Miller....stories end to end, from late 2001
to June 2003, and you (got) a desolate picture of a reporter with an agenda,
both manipulating and being manipulated by US government officials, Iraqi
exiles and defectors, an entire Noah's Ark of scam-artists."

Worst of all was The Times itself for giving her daily
front page space, then never adequately apologizing when their complicity
was exposed. Powerful media outlets never have to say they're sorry. They
stay in full battle mode against new targets.

Now Times editors have the audacity to advocate Libyan
intervention for reasons other than humanitarian, including asset freezes,
a no-fly zone, harsh sanctions, travel bans, encouraged insurrection, criminal
prosecution, stopping just short of endorsing war, but expect that to change
if Washington attacks.

The Washington Post is just as belligerent, its February
21 editorial headlined, "Moammar Gaddafi must pay for atrocities,"
saying:

His "beleaguered dictatorship (is) waging war against
its own people and committing atrocities that demand not just condemnation
but action by the outside world," accusing Gaddafi of committing genocide
based on mostly unverified reports, according to reliable independent in-country
sources. Nonetheless, the Post endorses "regime change" and International
Criminal Court (ICC) prosecution, ignoring far greater Bush and Obama administration
crimes, ongoing daily but not reported.

On March 2, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined,
"The Reluctant American," saying:

"The moral and strategic case for US leadership
in Libya is obvious. A terrorist regime is slaughtering its people who
will appreciate America's support and protection. A bloody civil war could
create chaos that turns Libya into a northern African failed state, an
ideal home for terrorist groups. The US should support a provisional government
that can take over when the regime collapses....What is Obama waiting for?"

Ask beleaguered Iraqis and Afghans if they appreciate
US intervention, occupation, mass destruction, genocide, depravation, disease,
and for many living early deaths! Ask them if they recommend this for Libyans!
Ask them if they prefer America to Saddam and Taliban rulers!

Ask Kosovars and Serbs! Ask Koreans and Southeast Asians
with long memories! Ask Central and Latin Americans! Ask Somalis and other
African nationals! Ask Palestinians! Ask Libyans if they know what awaits
them if America intervenes! If not, explain and let them decide! It won't
for Washington's military option, growing more imminent daily.

On February 28, New York writers Mark Landler and Thom
Shanker headlined, "US Readies Military Options on Libya," saying:

"The United States began moving warships toward
Libya and froze $30 billion in (its) assets on Monday," ahead of plundering
them, Libyan oil, and other resources, not mentioned in The Times report.

Conflict looks increasingly likely. Both Obama and Hillary
Clinton want Gaddafi out "without further violence or delay."
"No option is off the table," said Clinton, stopping just short
of declaring war. Secretaries of State can't do it. Neither can presidents,
but it hasn't stopped them since December 8, 1941, the last time America
legally went to war.

In meetings with NATO allies, said The Times, "European
officials have resisted military action," but didn't rule it out.
"Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean,"
asked French Prime Minister Francosi Fillon? "It is a question that
at least merits some reflection before being launched," weasel words
perhaps ahead of proceeding.

Pentagon officials want an international action mandate,
either from NATO or the UN, usually easily pressured to get. War winds
are blowing. Expect anything ahead, especially if misreporting incites
it the way it precedes all US wars.

Gaddifi's forces stepped up attacks, including "fighter
jets bomb(ing) an ammunition depot in the eastern city of Ajdabiya."
Up to 2,000 deaths were reported in Tripoli. Many thousands fled. Gaddafi
remains defiant.

Most of what Al Jajeera and Western media report isn't
verified. Yet it's inflammatory enough to stoke war for "humanitarian
intervention," the usual bogus reason America and Western nations
use, the same one earlier for Iraq, Afghanistan and other imperial interventions.
Affected nations are never the same.

Breaching Libyan Sovereignty

Britain and Germany already launched air operations to
evacuate their citizens. France is sending two or more planeloads of aid
to opposition forces in Benghazi. Italy suspended its Libyan nonaggression
treaty, saying the state no longer exists, an outrageous assertion.

In a BBC interview, Gaddafi called Western actions "betrayal,"
adding: "They have no morals." Indeed not and never did, despite
Big Oil profiting handsomely in Libya, and Gaddafi offering his security
forces for America's "war on terror."

Nonetheless, he's targeted for removal, State Department
spokesman PJ Crowley saying US officials have "been reaching out...to
a range of figures within the opposition." Hillary Clinton added:
"We are going to be ready and prepared to offer any kind of assistance
that anyone wishes to have from the US." Nothing is ruled out, including
weapons, intervention and war.

Nothing is said about client regimes engaged in similar
or worse practices, including killing, arresting, torturing, and otherwise
abusing thousands of its citizens. Decades of Israeli atrocities are ignored.
So are those of Iraq and Afghanistan puppet governments, proxy force belligerence
in Somalia and elsewhere, and numerous global client states doing the same
things.

Only outlier leaders are vilified, in Gaddafi's case
an embraced one now betrayed for broader aims. Washington seeks greater
regional dominance. Doing it requires compliant leaders, willing to let
America and European nations colonize their countries, plunder their resources,
exploit their people, and provide locations for new Pentagon bases. For
six and half million Libyans, that awaits them as Washington moves in for
the kill.

Final Comments

According to Russia Today (RT) television:

Russia's military has been monitoring Libya by satellite
since unrest began for accurate information about what, in fact, is ongoing.
Its Joint Staff confirms no evidence of air strikes or destruction on the
ground. Reports from US media, BBC, other Western sources, and Al Jazeera
are entirely bogus.

-- "There are claims that cities have fallen, but
in reality old videos or (ones) of other cities are being shown (in airing)
these reports....to the public."

-- "The words 'claim' and 'claimed' are now systematically
being used....to (corroborate) distorted or incorrect information."

-- World attention is on Libya, excluding other vital
events "in the Arab world - such as the continued protests and demands
of the Egyptian people (and others regionally) for authentic democracy,"
jobs, better wages, and other social issues.

-- "Reports have been made (about) fighting in Tripoli,
the Libyan capital, (saying) parts of it have fallen, when it has been
peaceful for days."

-- "On February 26, 2011, claims were (falsely)
made that all the main cities were not in Qaddafi's control." In fact,
he controls the following ones: "Sabha (in central Libya), Sirt/Surt
(on the coastal mid-point of Libya), Ghat (on the southern border with
Algeria), Al-Jufra, Al-Azizya (close to Tripoli) and Tripoli itself."

-- Media reports ignore Qaddafi "trying to negotiate
with the places not under his control."

-- Most important: Outrageous misreporting persists,
"blowing the violence out of proportion to justify foreign intervention."

It's coming - Washington-led naked aggression justified
as "humanitarian intervention." In fact, it's imperial lawlessness
against another target before advancing to the next one.

While one-sidely focusing on Libya, Western media ignore
the March 1 Amnesty International (AI) report titled, "Tunisia in
Revolt: State Violence during Anti Government Protests," saying:

During December and January protests, Tunisian security
forces engaged in "unlawful killings and acts of brutality....act(ing)
with reckless disregard for human life in all too many cases," according
to Malcolm Smart, AI's Middle East and North African program director.

"People detained by the security forces were also
systematically beaten or subjected to other ill-treatment, according to
(corroborated) evidence" obtained. Innocent bystanders were killed
in cold blood, some shot from behind. Death, injury and arrest numbers
are far higher than acknowledged. Major media sources, including Al Jazeera,
largely suppress this.

Brutal Egyptian military treatment is also ignored, including
mass arrests, disappearances and torture. An Egyptian human rights group
said thousands are in military custody. Many have been beaten or tortured.
US media ignored Egypt after Mubarak was ousted, despite protests, strikes
and violence continuing after a brief quiet period.

On February 15, AI condemned Bahrain's "heavy-handed....excessive
police force" violence, including killings against peaceful protesters.
An eyewitness said police, without provocation, opened fire on demonstrators,
wanting a new constitution and democratically elected government.

US major media reports suppress client regime crimes.
Only leaders Washington opposes draw attention, mostly by distorted misreporting.
Major focus now is on Gaddafi to provide legitimacy for imperial intervention.
As issue is replacing one despot with another willing to open Libya to
Western colonization, ahead of regional expansion for greater plunder,
exploitation and profits.

Arabs and North Africans want democratic change. Washington
and Western allies plan raw power to suppress it. Battle lines are drawn.
Sustained popular resistance is essential for real reform, what people
want, not dark forces allied against them repressively, especially America
treating all developing countries as exploitable low-hanging fruit. What
better time than now to stop it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays
at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.